USA v. Scott

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-23-00407-JD
)
ZACHARY SCOTT, JR., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Defendant Zachary Scott, Jr., appearing pro se, filed a motion for reduction of
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (“Motion”). [Doc. No. 41]. In his Motion, Mr.
Scott seeks to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 821 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. Motion at 1. Assistant Federal Public Defender Laura K. Deskin,
in accordance with this District’s General Order 23-6, filed a Notice Regarding
Defendant’s Ineligibility for Reduction of Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Based
on the Retroactive Application of USSG Amendment 821 [Doc. No. 46 at 2], notifying
“the Court that Mr. Scott is not eligible for relief because he did not have zero criminal
history points (he had 16) nor was he assessed criminal history status points.” The United
States responded to Mr. Scott’s Motion [Doc. No. 48], asserting that Mr. Scott does not
qualify for a sentence reduction under Part A or Part B of Amendment 821 because he
had a total of 16 criminal history points and did not receive any status points for
committing the offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The United States
Probation Office (“USPO”) filed a Preliminary Report for Consideration of Sentence
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Reduction Based on Amendment 821 [Doc. No. 45], likewise asserting that Mr. Scott is
ineligible for sentencing relief for the same reasons. For the reasons stated below, the
Court dismisses the Motion for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Scott is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2023, Mr. Scott entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the
Indictment charging him with interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a). [Doc. Nos. 1, 21–25]. On May 23, 2024, the USPO filed the Final
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). [Doc. No. 31]. The 2023 Guidelines Manual
was used to determine Mr. Scott’s offense level, and Counts 1 and 3 were not grouped.
PSR ¶ 20. The PSR assigned a base offense level of 20 for Count 1. Id. ¶ 21. Six levels
were added to the base offense level under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) because Mr. Scott
pointed a firearm at the victim during the robbery. Id. ¶ 22. This resulted in an adjusted
offense level (subtotal) of 26 for Count 1. Id. ¶ 26. The PSR assigned a base offense level
of 20 for Count 3. Id. ¶ 27. Five levels were added to the base offense for Count 3 under
USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) because Mr. Scott revealed a firearm to the cashier. Id. ¶ 28. This
resulted in an adjusted offense level (subtotal) of 25 for Count 3. Id. ¶ 32. The PSR
applied the greater adjusted offense level of 26 and, pursuant to USSG § 3D1.4, increased
that level by two levels based on the assignment of two units, resulting in a combined
adjusted offense level of 28. Id. ¶¶ 33–36. After applying the three-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, the PSR calculated a total offense level of 25. Id. ¶¶ 38–40.
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
The PSR calculated a total criminal history score of 16, placing Mr. Scott in a
criminal history category of VI. Id. ¶ 52. Mr. Scott did not receive any “status points” for
committing the offense while under a criminal justice sentence. Based on a total offense
level of 25 and a criminal history category of VI, Mr. Scott’s advisory guideline range for
imprisonment was 110 months to 137 months. Id. ¶ 86.
At the sentencing hearing held on July 16, 2024, the Court adopted the PSR
without change. [Doc. No. 40 at 1]. The Court varied upward and sentenced Mr. Scott to
a term of imprisonment of 180 months, consisting of 180 months as to Counts 1 and 3, to
be served concurrently. Judgment at 2 [Doc. No. 39 at 2]; see also [Doc. No. 37 at 1]. Mr.
Scott now asks the Court to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 821 to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines. Motion at 1.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Congress has authorized courts to modify prison sentences only under limited
circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709
(10th Cir. 1997) (explaining that district courts lack inherent authority to modify a
previously imposed sentence absent statutory authorization); United States v. Blackwell,
81 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that a “district court is authorized to
modify [the defendant’s] sentence only in specified instances where Congress has
expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so”).
One basis of authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows for a possible
sentence reduction for a defendant “who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In such a case, the Court “may” reduce a
sentence if doing so would be consistent with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
See id.
“Section 3582(c)(2) prescribes a two-step process.” United States v. Battle, 706
F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). At step one, the district court must follow the
Sentencing Commission’s “instructions in [USSG] § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s
eligibility for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized.” United
States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)); see United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.
2014) (explaining that the first step, “a matter of law, is whether a sentence reduction is
even authorized”). At step two, the district court considers whether such reduction “is
warranted in whole or in part” based on the applicable § 3553(a) factors and policy
statements. Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266; see White, 765 F.3d at 1245 (explaining that the
second step, “a matter of discretion, is whether an authorized reduction is in fact
warranted”). Additionally, the district court “‘may consider’ the defendant’s post-
sentencing conduct.” United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195 (10th Cir. 2012)
(quoting USSG § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii)). Section 3582(c)(2), however, does not
provide a new sentencing proceeding. See Piper, 839 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that
§ 3582(c)(2)’s process “authorize[s] only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final
sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)).
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Here, Mr. Scott seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2023, and
applies retroactively. Part A of Amendment 821 limits the criminal history impact of
“status points,” and Part B creates a new guideline, § 4C1.1, that provides for a decrease
of two offense levels for “Zero-Point Offenders.” See USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend.
821 (Part B) (Zero-Point Offenders). With respect to the guideline for zero-point
offenders, a defendant is eligible for a two-level reduction in the offense level if he meets
all 10 of the listed criteria. See USSG § 4C1.1(a).
As set forth above, Mr. Scott had a total of 16 criminal history points. PSR ¶ 51.
And he did not receive any status points for committing the offense while under a
criminal justice sentence. Thus, a sentence reduction is not authorized under either Part A
or Part B of Amendment 821 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).1
Accordingly, because no reduction is authorized, the Court lacks jurisdiction under
§ 3582(c)(2) to modify Mr. Scott’s sentence and dismisses the Motion. See White, 765
F.3d at 1250 (explaining that where a defendant is “ineligible to receive a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2), . . . dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than denial on
the merits is the appropriate disposition”); see also United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 755 F.
App’x 811, 813 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s dismissal
1 Mr. Scott was sentenced after November 1, 2023, the effective date of
Amendment 821.
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
for lack of jurisdiction where Amendment 782 did not affect the defendant’s guideline
range).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant Zachary Scott, Jr.’s pro se motion for reduction of
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) [Doc. No. 41] is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of January 2026.
Case 5:23-cr-00407-JD Document 50 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 6